My interest is to see the "transition to a world that is Climate-Friendly, Waste-Free and Wilderness-Rich". That is to say "sustainable".
Current oil crops are limited, in yield, by the concentration of economic product in reproductive tissue. With the exception of oil palm. However there are genera where oils are secreted in vegetative tissue, and that fix nitrogen also (via Azotobacter and haem-O2-transporters). For example Myrica cerifera and Myrica pensylvannica are fatty-acid secreting temperate species, that fix nitrogen that might be bred to produce substantial quantities of oil. In the same way that oil palm was selected, in the 1940's-1950's, for high oil in vegetative tissue.
Like oil yields that are limited by concentration of product in reproductive tissue (seeds), starch yields are greatest in crops where the product is in vegetative tissue. Sugar beet, for example, yields an average of 12 tonnes of pure sugar per hectare, in some years across the whole of beet cropping in England. Which might be compared to average yields of wheat, that are at best 8-10 tonnes per hectare. There is thus huge scope to develop higher yielding staple crops - where the product is concentrated in vegetative tissue (turnips, swedes, temperate yams, beets, and many more).
Potato yields, it is perhaps worth noting, have been stagnant for almost 40 years, owing to perversities in research, and to cheating consumers with rotten quality products (so that they are rewarded for buying antique varieties - which are often from the old Maris Lane labs in Cambridge).
Those same, vegetative, and high yielding staples could also be selected for nutritional quality - principally lysine and methionine levels (which are deficient in grains and potatoes). This has been done using GM by Monsanto with corn, and by Chakraborty with Amaranthus protein in potatoes, but the varieties are kept out of the market and there is virtually no awareness of the savings possible and benefits of 'nutritionally complete staples'. Which would quickly reduce the 25% figure - of the world's children (WHO) who are stunted?
This situation, where obvious and feasible technologies are disregarded, is ludicrous given the imperatives of rapid climate change - and of deprivation in many parts of the world. However many people feel that, as we have an economic model that depends on growth, overconsumption and waste (to mitigate deficit financing and an unsustainable redistribution/allocation model), this situation is desirable.
But, like the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, UNEP, and a host of others, I think that this is ridiculous. We should grow up and stop using resources (that pollute the planet) just because we could not be bothered coming up with a better allocation system.
[FOOTNOTE: A more resource rich world would lead to much greater flourishing of care, justice, the arts, sports and leisure - with selection mainly determined by performance in these spheres. As seen in the flourishes and vivid displays of tropical species. This contrasts with the perverse incentives (for waste) and hugely distorted incentives (prices) that are in any case often meaningless (incommensurable in economic, social and environmental dimensions and metrics).]
Summary published in: The East Anglian Daily Times 8th August 2015 | plant-science-should-focus-on-stem-leaf-and-root-crops
